Since everyone loves Ann Coulter

Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > > > > Originally posted by Jeff Easley> > > Oh I almost forgot, if Bill Clinton would have taken Bin-Laden out when he was supposed to no one in New York or Washington would have had to pay the price. Did we forget? We were attacked.> > >

well...if reagan and bush had never backed bin laden, and his family, and then ignored (and then coddled) the taliban from the beginning, we might never be in this mess in the first place!

The US backed the Mujahidin, not Bin Laden specifically. If we had known his future intentions, sure Reagan and Papa Bush would have done things differently in supporting the Mujahidin in their fight versus the Communists in Afghanistan. But destroying Communist nations was our first priority at the time and there were some consequences (the Taliban in Afghanistan arising straight from the Mujahidin fighters). The consequences appeared during Clinton's watch and nothing of any worth was done. In 93 Bin Laden tried to bomb the WTC, but we had to wait until 2001 before an American president would start to take action. The mess was created from shortmindedness from Reagan and Papa Bush in their fight against Communism, but when the consequences started to appear, Clinton did nothing of any worth, and he also cut intelligence and military spending.

bush was aware of bin laden, and his place in the mujahedeen during the afghan war. also, when republicans blame clinton for sept. 11 (as i've seen in many regnery press books) why does blame for the 1993 bombing never fall on GHW bush? it was during his presidency that the plans were created for the bombing. hmmm.

as for the consequences appearing during clinton's administration, the top CIA man in afghanistan during the afghan war would disagree with you. he knew afghanistan was a hotbed for anti-americanism and he said the american government under george bush didn't do anything about it.

as for clinton doing nothing of any worth, bush is just as responsible. he knew from intel that bin laden was planning attacks in the US, but wouldn't listen. he was too busy formulating his plan against iraq (summer of 2001).

the fact is, whether a democrat was in office or a republican wouldn't have made any difference. this is the brilliance of terrorist strategy; remain under the radar and cause confusion, chaos, and cause internal strife. americans just haven't figured this out yet.

In 1992 were the plans for the 1993 WTC bombing known by Papa Bush? Hell, I'd agree with you if you could tell me that, but I'm no sure you can.

Why did the American gvmt. not do anything under Reagan and Papa Bush against the radical Muslims in Afghanistan? It's because they wanted these people to finish the job in kicking out the Communists, which happened in 89. Then the Gulf War came in 1991, so did we have the resources to go deal with a possible threat which had not reared its ugly head of major terrorist bombings affecting the US yet.

In Bush's 9 months as prez before 9/11 I do hold him somewhat accountable for not dealing with Bin Laden, but hell Clinton had nearly 8 years, so I hold him much, much more accountable. Especially since Al Qaeda attacked American interests so many times during his presidency and with him not devoting enough attention to Bin Laden.

I believe politicians on both sides of the aisle are responsible, but the failures of Billy remain steadfast in my mind (WTC, our embassies, USS Cole).

As for Bush prepping for a war against Saddam, hell any presidential cabinet would have prepared for action against Saddam. The man funded suicide bombers, he liked to ignore sanctions, he enjoyed shooting at our planes, etc. Also much of our attention for a while was focused on China when they impounded the American plane that landed on their territory after a collision in April.

^ive never seen any evidence that he funded suicide bombers...

i have seen video of him presenting checks to the surviving family members of a few suicide bombers though..

Originally posted by Spenser Stone ^ive never seen any evidence that he funded suicide bombers...i have seen video of him presenting checks to the surviving family members of a few suicide bombers though..

Sorry, that is what I meant; he gave money to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Spenser Stone> ^ive never seen any evidence that he funded suicide bombers...> > > i have seen video of him presenting checks to the surviving family members of a few suicide bombers though..

Sorry, that is what I meant; he gave money to the families of the Palestinian suicide bombers.

so do our friends the saudis. why aren't we going after them? instead, george I visits with the royal family and helps US companies accept their investments.

considering that 70% of IRA funds came from american citizens (not sure what the status has been since the good friday agreement), i wonder why our government never spoke up about that!

You knw what this thread needs? A few pictures of Simon Gallup. Just reading about politics and happening to look at pictures of Ann Coulter is enough to make anyone :barf:

Originally posted by Tristan

I love this.

Originally posted by Buffer Low > Originally posted by Tristan

I love this. Visiting the grave of her hero.

No way! that's just sad.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Spenser Stone> alot of this shite she talks is borderline fascist...> > "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to christianity.." > > -in regards to islamic nations...> > ..I dunno if im the only one making the connection here.. blonde hair, blue eyes, anglo-saxon protestant background..> > > the woman is a closet nazi

If blond hair, blue eyes and being an anglo-saxon makes someone a Nazi, then nearly every WASP here, and many Brits must be Nazis. With Ann Coulter, one must take everything with a grain of salt. She is VERY sarcastic much of the time, and if you understand her, then she can be very humorous and enlightening at the same time.

Not really, she's merely yet another generic right wing nutcase, the US media is overrun with them (her USP is that she is, gosh, a _woman_!). Personally I am BORED with hearing about them. And everyone of the teeming hordes of them insists they are a lone voice kicking against the (mythical) 'liberal' media. I'm not aware she's ever said anything that made any sense or had any connection with reality (and sarcasm is the lowest form of with dontcha know). She did once say something I half agreed with, which was that John Walker Lindh should be executed in order to 'scare the liberals'. Not that I can make head nor tail out of her implicit argument that a right-wing religious fundamentalist like JWL is in someway a 'liberal', but it might be a good thing for US liberals to realise just how ruthless, and indeed murderous, the US right is in securing its own economic interests.

This one has some great points about O' Reilly and Matthews, but damn does she make some flawed assumptions...

Admitted War Criminal Cries Foul August 25, 2004

There are several methods of evaluating the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, 254 of whom have signed a letter saying John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief.

There is the Bill O'Reilly method, which is to abandon independent thinking and simply come out in the middle, irrespective of where the two sides are. In response to Newt Gingrich's remark that the Swift Boat Veterans' independent ads were "the conservative movement's answer to Michael Moore," O'Reilly said, "I don't want either of them."

In Nazi Germany, O'Reilly would have condemned both Hitler's death camps and the Warsaw ghetto uprising. In Bill O'Reilly's world, King Solomon would have actually cut the disputed baby in half.

The O'Reilly method of analysis works well about once a century. The last time was when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.

Then there is the Chris Matthews method, which is to decide in advance that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are the lowest form of human life imaginable and then publicly excoriate them for consuming oxygen.

Matthews employs a logical calculus known as "begging the question," which goes something like this:

1. John Kerry claims to be a great war hero.

2. Maybe so, but legitimate questions have been raised about his combat record.

3. How can you say that about a great war hero like John Kerry?

When John O'Neill, author of "Unfit for Command," went on "Hardball," Matthews accused O'Neill of being a Republican operative and demanded that O'Neill detail for "Hardball's" six remaining viewers his voting history for the past 20 years in mind-numbing detail. (Completely destroying his case against Kerry, in 1988, O'Neill voted for George Herbert Walker Bush!) Apparently voting for a Republican presidential candidate 15 years ago is a credibility-destroyer, whereas being a former member of the White House staff under Jimmy Carter, as Chris Matthews is, enhances one's credibility.

Normally an interview on a newly released book consists of the author being asked questions about his book and the author answering the questions. With O'Neill, Matthews interviewed himself.

Also, erstwhile war protester John Hurley was interviewed along with O'Neill about "Unfit for Command." The fact that Hurley (1) didn't write the book, and (2) is a paid Kerry campaign worker raises no credibility issues. A colleague of Kerry's in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hurley's contribution to the interview about a book he didn't write consisted of his piping in periodically with insightful comments about O'Neill, such as "his book and his organization is built on lies and distortions."

O'Neill's contribution to a discussion about his own book consisted mostly of meaningless sentence fragments:

O'Neill: I don't believe that ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, I'm not here to ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: I think he is millions of steps behind, because he went over ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: His first Purple ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, the first ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: You're right. I'm saying ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, wait just a second. What you've done is ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: First of all ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

Finally, O'Neill proposed that he be allowed to answer questions and Matthews erupted with an indignant speech notable mostly for being slightly longer than anything O'Neill ever got to say:

Matthews: "One of the oldest tricks on this show is for somebody to come on the show after talking for 20 minutes and say they haven't had the chance to talk. I'll be glad to clock you, John, on how many minutes you spoke on the show. So don't try that old trick. It is a particularly conservative trick, OK? So let's move on here."

Let's review the transcript!

Total words by book author John O'Neill: approximately 1,150. (Complete sentences devoid of Matthews interruptions: about 2.)

Total words by paid Kerry flack Hurley: approximately 950.

Total words by Matthews, excluding host prattle ("Welcome back to 'Hardball'!"): approximately 2,290.

At least Matthews didn't physically throw O'Neill off his set as he did Michelle Malkin a few nights later while she tried in vain to discuss her new book. The lion-hearted Matthews reserves that level of rudeness only for girls. (Now that I think about it, compared to the average Democrat male, maybe John Kerry is manly.)

In lieu of the O'Reilly method (randomly coming out in "the middle" of every issue) or the Matthews method (deciding, ab initio, that any criticism of Kerry could come only from bottom-feeding, politically motivated whores), there is still another method of evaluating the evidence, which is to evaluate the evidence.

For starters, 254 swiftboat veterans say Kerry is a fraud; 14 say he's a hero. Partisan considerations aside, which would be more difficult to do: Get 14 liars to keep a secret, or get 254 liars to do so? As a student of recent history, I defer to any registered Democrat on this question.

Of course, the 14 in Kerry's camp are not necessarily lying, being bribed, or hoping for a position in the Kerry administration – possibilities the media will never raise, I note. But we're talking about 35-year-old memories here; 254 memories to 14 memories is what we used to call "evidence."

Why don't we just give both sides some swiftboats, a few machine guns and lots of ammo, put them on a river somewhere, and let them settle this whole thing like gentlemen once and for all?